REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.              OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6016 of 2008)

Shivnath Prasad         ….Appellant  

Versus

The State of Bihar ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Heard

2. Leave granted.

3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of  the  Patna  High  Court  dismissing  the  revision  petition  filed  by  the

appellant.

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections

279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran.  He was sentenced to

undergo  simple  imprisonment  for  six  months  and  one  year  respectively.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.  An appeal was filed

and the leaned Additional  District  and Sessions  Judge,  Fast  Track Court

No.II, Bettiah, West Champaran affirmed the conviction and sentence.  The

revision filed was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that there

was no scope for interference.

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the  prosecution

version has not been established.  There were several infirmities which the

High  Court  unfortunately  did  not  notice.   The  I.O.,  the  Doctor  and  the

informant  were  not  examined.  The  post-mortem  report  was  also  not

exhibited.  PW-3, who claimed to be the son of the deceased was not the

2

informant.  The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court relied upon his

evidence.  Significantly, he was also not named as an eye witness in the

FIR. PW-4 claimed to be an eye-witness.  But, he was not examined during

investigation.   Out  of  the  five  witnesses,  who  were  stated  to  be  eye-

witnesses, three did not support the prosecution version.

6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, all these factors have

not  been  considered  by  the  High  Court.   Learned  counsel  for  the

respondent-State supported the impugned order of the High Court.

7. We find that the High Court has,  by a cryptic  order, dismissed the

revision petition.  It has not noticed the various submissions made by the

appellant,  as  noticed  above.   In  the  circumstances,  we  set  aside  the

impugned  order  of  the  High Court  and remit  the  matter  to  it  for   fresh

consideration in accordance with law.

8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.                   

………….....................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

………….……….........................J.          (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi,

3

November 28, 2008

4